Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2007 2007 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 501 to 520 of 2676 Records

• 2007 (10) TMI 187
  

  SSI exemption - Not. 9/2000 amended by subsequent not. 15/01 - Notification No. 15/2001 was issued limiting the concessional rate of duty - Notification itself clearly lays down that it has to be applied with retrospective effect – so plea of prospective effect is rejected but plea for benefit of cum-duty price is justified so matter remanded to original authority to work out the duty after granting benefit – penalty and interest are not justified as there is no suppression of facts

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 185
  

  Not maintained separate account in respect of the inputs used in their dutiable products and exempted products - appellant had reversed the entire credit along with interest attributable to the exempted products – held that appellants had not taken any credit at all in view of the reversal - Rule 6 would not be applicable - appellant is not required to pay 8% or 10% of the sale value of the ex empted products – appeal allowed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 184
  

  Payment of duty on being pointed out by dept. that cement had been cleared in excess - clearance of goods by the appellants was during the months of April and May 1986 while the duty was paid in November 1986 - incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer will not be attracted when the payment of duty is paid subsequent to clearance of goods - Bar of unjust enrichment would not be attracted – refund was rightly allowed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 183
  

  Credit denied for three reasons – held that credit can’t be denied for reason that it is taken on invoices issued by dealers who are not registered as per Not. 32/94 because requirement of registration was introduced only on 4th July, 1994 – Allegation of missing particular is also wrong so credit allowed in that concern – in respect of invoice Nos. 41 and 42, description of the goods varied so credit is not allowed in this concern – appeal partly allowed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 182
  

  Not. 108/95 granted total exemption from payment of duty of Excise in respect of goods when supplied to projects financed by the U.N. or an international organisation and approved by the GOI – benefit of notification cannot be denied merely for reason that goods were not directly supplied to the project implementing authority but supplied to a contractor or a sub-contractor engaged to implement the project - all other conditions of Not. 108/95 duly complied – exemption available

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 181
  

  Credit wrongly reversed under protest as was directed by the Superintendent - refund claim was filed by them on direction of the authorities (letter of the Superintendent) - the letter of the Superintendent directing the appellant to file a refund claim is the date on which the appellant was made aware that refund claim is required to be filed - inability of the Range Officer to give proper direction to the appellant at the first instance cannot be held against them – refund not time-barred

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 180
  

  Appellants manufactured parts of Vibration Isolation Systems and claimed exemption u/not.. 6/2002, Entry No. 21. - impugned item can be considered as parts of waste convention devices producing energy so original authority denied the exemption - item 21 of list 9 of not. 6/02 indicates that the exemption is available only for captive consumption – tribunal cannot ignore such condition stipulated in notification so exemption not available

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 178
  

  Penalty – non maintenance of proper records – shortage of the finished goods - respondent is liable to penalty under Rule 25 - Rule 25 transpires that the manufacturer shall be liable to penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods or Rs. 10,000/- whichever is greater – since duty amount involved is Rs. 4917 only - order of the Comm. (Appeals) of reduction of penalty less than Rs. 10,000/- i.e. Rs. 4,000/- is set aside

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 177
  

  Spare parts cleared by assessee to EFL (main co.) who use them in repairs and maintenance of water purifiers in Annual Maintenance Contract - assessee cleared certain spares to EFL who sell them - respondents pay duty on the basis of the sale value of EFL - but in respect of spares cleared to EFL who use them in their AMC, the value adopted for payment of duty is u/r 8 (cost construction method) – No error in assessee valuation – Revenue seeking duty to be paid on sale value of EFL is wrong

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 170
  

  Allegation is that the purchaser of the paints manufactured by the appellants is incurring a cost of Rs. 2 per litre on account of two of his employees placed in the appellants factory for the purpose of supervision of manufacture of paints - said amount is not collected by the appellants - it is the expense incurred by the purchaser and it is not related to the transaction value and it cannot be added to the assessable value - stay application is allowed granting waiver of pre-deposit

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 168
  

  ROM application - Tribunal has clearly held that conversion of electric crane into hydraulic on replacement of certain parts would not amount to manufacture & held that the duty is not sustainable - typographical mistake in the Order - instead of setting aside the duty demand of Rs. 15,00,000/- the amount shown in the is Rs. 5,00,000/-. - no reason for revenue to demand the remaining 10,00,000/- Rs. – ignoring the delay in filing the ROM application, we allow the same

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 167
  

  Whether an amount equal to 8% of the value of the exempted goods u/r 6(3)(b) of CCR would be payable at the time of clearance from the factory or at the end of the month, as per Rule 8 CEA - no provision for manner of payment of the amount u/r 6(3)(b) - So, the provisions of Rule 8(1) of CE Rules would be construed u/r 6(3)(b) of CCR - respondent rightly paid the amount u/r 6(3)(b) of CCR in the manner envisaged u/r 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 166
  

  Refund – in view of not. No. 2 appellants were required to pay 50% of the duty liability from the PLA Account and 50% from the Cenvat account - they could pay only 45% of the aggregate duty from the Cenvat account and to compensate for the shortfall of 5%, they debited 55% from the PLA - In terms of the Notification, for deemed credit, the appellant was actually entitled for 50% of the aggregate of duty of excise leviable on the final products – It is purely a mistake – refund admissible

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 165
  

  Solar Inverter Charger for solar lantern – Ex. Not. 5/99-C.E - Dy. General Manager certified that the inverter merger constitutes solar power generating system as it performs the function of generating the required high frequency AC power from in-light with, the help of SPV module and supplying it to the compact fluorescent lamp of a solar lantern - In view of this expert opinion, we hold that impugned item can be considered as solar power generating system for exemption under Not. 5/99

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 159
  

  Balance amount of credit would have lapsed on surrendering the excise registration certificate on date of opting for the Exemption Not. 30/04 & wouldn’t have been available for utilization, hence the end result is same – no question arise of reversing the entire amount of duty lying in balance

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 158
  

  Impugned proprietary concern & Pvt Ltd. are common only for accounting purposes – it doesn’t mean that their clearance be clubbed to deny SSI exemption u/n 1/93 – correct way to calculate SSI limit is to sum total the clearances of both the concerns to the third party in open market.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 157
  

  Demand – abetment in evasion – appellant getting semi-finished goods from X – even these goods had been taken on RG 1 by appellant & cleared on payment of duty after further finishing, clearance of those goods by X were eligible for SSI exemption u/n 214/86 – no abetment by appellant

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 156
  

  Wrong formula adopted while calculating A.V. of casting on basis of cost construction method – differential duty rightly demanded – but allegation of suppression is wrong – declaration & RT-12 returns duly filed – no intention to evade duty – revenue neutrality – demand time-barred

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 155
  

  Untimely action to deny inadmissible credit – in earlier proceedings refund was allowed as not barred by unjust enrichment or limitation – if proceedings in first round had reached finality then same could not be re-opened to deny refund or raise interest

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 154
  

  ‘Gold hofer’ name of appellant co. as well as foreign co. - inscription written ‘In collaboration with Goldhofer ….’ did not indicate any connection between their product & foreign co. – Goldhofer, was not established to be brand name of foreign co., - SSI exemption U/Not. 175/86 & 1/93 available

  ---

1 ....222324252627282930........ 134